From: Michael Vrbanac ([email protected])
Date: Sat Jan 08 2000 - 19:36:14 PST
I can explain it and have but I won't as I explained before. I have had laboratory
evidence but could not retain it as it was left at a previous place of employment.
Sorry! That was in accordance with my work agreement. And, of course, as
many have said to me before... "that's such a convenient excuse!" Again, sorry!
As a consolation for those disappointed, I will give only one final hint. For those
who love simplicity, it indeed is. For those who love the complex, an important
piece of it can be seen in a section in a highly revered tome written by a well-
respected author but it is not in a form that you would normally expect.
After seeing that, and considering its implications, compelling supporting evidence
can be seen in many texts. ( Those of you who already know, don't give
it away! You'll spoil the learning experience for everyone else.) Ok, one more
hint and its the very last... and this I will credit to Michael Chan.... think of WHY
someone might have needed to do something like this, what they needed to
accomplish, and where it just might make some sense.
Have fun! <grin> Hopefully, the search might prove fruitful for many looking for it
even beyond learning about the 20H rule and where it really applies. And maybe...
just maybe, we can "unscrew" one "screwy rule" AND we might just all be
in agreement about it!!!
Once you figure it out, you will probably agree with me when I say that the 20H rule
may not provide significant benefit for every application in every design but it
does have its uses.
Lee Ritchey wrote:
> If you cannot explain the 20h rule, do you have any laborator evidence to support it?
> Michael Vrbanac wrote:
> > Hi, Michael,
> > That is my point exactly. The "screwy rule" was driven by some need
> > at some time and place and more than likely be viewed negatively in
> > an industry segment where the need to use it is much less. The funny
> > "human thing" to do is to therefore deny the existence of anything we've
> > never seen or attempted to simulate.
> > As I have, over time, attempted to "thoroughly explain" what I believe
> > the 20H rule is "doing and what it is meant to do", I never seem to get
> > folks to accept that explanation for whatever reason even though there
> > have been designs which have benefitted from it. So I don't offer
> > explanations anymore. Now I just let folks figure it out for themselves. Its
> > a whole like trying to argue about "grounding methodologies" with someone
> > who is intently opposed to your position. You can't possibly create any
> > scenario to convince them otherwise. So the discussion is useless especially
> > in a public forum. Perhaps you might understand what I mean if I
> > asked you to defend exactly why it wouldn't work and let the process
> > go from there.
> > I was serious about the point about being careful of what one claims as
> > "non-applicable" or "nonsense" from a global sense (i.e. all disciplines and
> > sub-disciplines) unless it clearly violates Maxwell Equations. By doing
> > so, it amounts to a claim of infallibility both in reasoning and test vehicle
> > methodology and measurement. That's a pretty arrogant position and
> > I try to stay away from that. The best anyone can say is that, based on
> > their testing and particular methodology and measurement, the principle
> > will or will not be applicable for that particular situation.
> > Again, the creation of some of the "screwy rules" came from a need to
> > address a certain type of problem and it was apparently successful
> > enough to gain a widespread audience in its application. Was it all
> > hoopla or was it a practical solution for a particular problem that many
> > of us still don't understand? Either one is possible.... you must decide.
> > Michael E. Vrbanac
> > "Chan, Michael" wrote:
> > > My 2 cents is to find out how a "screwy rule" being drawn out. A
> > > rule ( no matter it is good or bad ) has to come out from some initatives
> > > and/or motivatives. I don't think a rule can come out from nowhere. I
> > > believe
> > > a rule based on solid fundamental concepts cannot be wrong by that much and
> > > any derivative from real world observations can be corrected and/or
> > > improved.
> > >
> > > I believe building some test structures in order to see whether a rule will
> > > break or not cannot help to try to understand how a rule being drawn up and
> > > whether a rule make sense or not.
> > >
> > > For example, take the famous " 20H RULE " as a case. Can anyone, especially
> > > the originator(s) ( if there is some ) of the 20H Rule explains the physical
> > >
> > > concepts behind how this rule is being drawn up?
> > >
> > > Michael Chan
> > >
> > **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to [email protected] In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
> > si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
> > ****
> **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to [email protected] In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
> si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to [email protected] In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:34:29 PDT